Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Carrasquillo, J.
115 A.3d 1284
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Two girls were assaulted on June 1, 2009; N.O. was raped and hospitalized, C.J. escaped after touching.
- Appellee Jose A. Carrasquillo pled guilty to multiple sexual offenses after a competency finding.
- Plea colloquy reviewed rights and potential sentences; court explained pre-sentence withdrawal could be requested for fair and necessary reasons.
- At sentencing, evidence and victim impact were presented; Carrasquillo argued innocence with a polygraph-related rationale and other beliefs.
- The sentencing court denied the presentence motion to withdraw; Carrasquillo was sentenced to 30–66 years.
- Superior Court en banc reversed, holding a bare innocence claim is sufficient to withdraw, rejecting a rationality inquiry.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to clarify whether bare innocence is a fair-and-just reason for withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bare assertion of innocence suffices for presentence withdrawal | Carrasquillo argues per se innocence triggers withdrawal | Carrasquillo contends per se rule should govern | No; must show a plausible, fair-and-just reason |
| Whether Forbes governs liberality with credibility in innocence claims | Forbes permits liberal withdrawal for innocence | Innocence claims require credibility and plausible support | Adopt plausible innocence standard with colorable support |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying withdrawal | Denial was arbitrary given innocence assertion | Court acted consistently with discretion and record | Court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 450 Pa. 185 (Pa. 1973) (liberal pre-sentence withdrawal standard; 'fair and just' with no automatic right)
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 452 Pa. 546 (Pa. 1973) (innocence declaration timing affects applicability of liberal rule)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 553 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1998) (rejects per se innocence rule; emphasizes credibility considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Katonka, 33 A.3d 44 (Pa.Super.2011) (en banc; rejects bare innocence as sole basis; discusses prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Unangst, 71 A.3d 1017 (Pa.Super.2013) (confirms limitations on credibility evaluations in plea-withdrawal context)
- Commonwealth v. Gordy, 73 A.3d 620 (Pa.Super.2013) (prejudice concerns focus on Commonwealth’s prosecution, not witness inconvenience)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 387 Pa. Super. 328 (Pa.Super.1989) (per se innocence concerns discussed; cautions against automatic relief)